Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
1
Case 1:07-cv-01456-SL Document 1 Filed 05/16/2007 Page 1 of 5
This case is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Withdraw the Reference of This
Adversary Proceeding to Bankruptcy Court (Doc. 1) and the Response in Opposition filed by
Plaintiff Messinger, the SIPA Trustee (Doc. 2). For the reasons explained below, Defendants’
Donald Messinger, in his capacity as Securities Investor Protection Act (“SIPA”) Trustee
for the liquidation of the business of NEBS Financial Services, filed this adversary action in the
Bankruptcy Court alleging three counts: breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and
declaratory relief, all arising out of an insurance coverage dispute with Defendants. Defendants
Chubb Group of Insurance Companies, Federal Insurance Company and Chubb & Sons
(hereinafter “Defendants” or “Chubb Group”) answered that complaint and then moved this
Court to withdraw reference of this matter from the Bankruptcy Court. Messinger has responded
In the time since the issues were joined on the motion to withdraw reference, the
Bankruptcy Court has issued a decision stating that the underlying adversary proceeding is a
Dockets.Justia.com
Case 1:07-cv-01456-SL Document 1 Filed 05/16/2007 Page 2 of 5
non-core proceeding, as that term is understood in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b). That finding is helpful to
this Court in its decision on this motion, although it is not dispositive of the question whether its
The decision whether to withdraw reference to the bankruptcy court rests squarely with
the district court. In the absence of a determination that resolution of a proceeding requires
consideration of both title 11 and other federal law regulating organizations or activities that
affect interstate commerce (in which case withdrawal is mandatory), withdrawal of reference to
the bankruptcy court is discretionary. 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). “The district court may withdraw, in
whole or in part, any case or proceeding referred under this section, on its own motion or on
timely motion of any party, for cause shown.” Id. Here, no party has alleged any of the factors
requiring mandatory withdrawal. Withdrawal of this matter therefore is discretionary with this
Section 157 does not identify what constitutes cause to support the withdrawal of a
reference to the bankruptcy court. The Sixth Circuit has not squarely addressed this issue. The
law of other circuits, however, provides this Court with a reasonable framework on which to
numerous factors, including: whether the proceeding is core or non-core to the bankruptcy
court’s jurisdiction; whether it is legal or equitable in nature; the efficient use of judicial
resources; prevention of forum shopping; and the effect of the ruling on uniformity in
administering bankruptcy law. See In re: Orion Pictures Corp., 4 F.3d 1095, 1101 (2d Cir.
1993); see also In re: Canter, 299 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2002); In re: Velocita Corp., 169 F.
-2-
Case 1:07-cv-01456-SL Document 1 Filed 05/16/2007 Page 3 of 5
Here, the Bankruptcy Court issued a Memorandum of Opinion and an Order on January
23, 2007, stating that the adversary proceeding is not a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C.
the bankruptcy court, and it is a central question to the determination of a motion to withdraw
motion to withdraw reference.” Nat’l Century Fin. Ent., Inc., v. Great Am. Ins. Co., Case No.
2:04CV0908, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13379 at *4-*5 (S.D. Ohio Jul. 5, 2005) (citations omitted).
If a proceeding is a non-core proceeding, the bankruptcy judge cannot enter a final judgment in
the proceeding without the consent of all parties, which consent the Chubb Group here has
specifically withheld. See BR 7012; see also Motion to Withdraw at 2-3. Requiring the
bankruptcy court to go forward with deciding a non-core proceeding, when the district court very
easily may have to review that decision de novo, has substantial implications for another
important factor, the efficient use of judicial resources. Further, it makes more sense for a court
of broader jurisdiction to consider the potentially broad range of legal issues present in a non-
core proceeding.
Here, this Court is convinced that the Bankruptcy Court correctly identified this
adversary proceeding as a non-core proceeding. The legal issues – breach of contract, breach of
fiduciary duty and requested declaratory relief concerning the rights and duties of the parties
under the Broker’s Fidelity Bond – all arise out of an insurance coverage dispute between
Messinger and the Chubb Group, which will require the consideration of numerous issues of
substantive insurance law. These issues are outside the bankruptcy court’s primary area of
expertise. Further, the determination of Messinger’s claims has no discernible relationship to the
-3-
Case 1:07-cv-01456-SL Document 1 Filed 05/16/2007 Page 4 of 5
resolution of the bankruptcy proceeding. The question of whether there is coverage under the
relevant insurance policy does not depend on the outcome of the bankruptcy proceeding, nor do
the merits of the bankruptcy proceeding depend on whether there is coverage under the relevant
insurance policy.
The adversary proceeding is legal, rather than equitable, in nature; it is based on state law
claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and it seeks a declaration of the parties’
rights under the Broker’s Fidelity Bond as it relates to the insurance contract at issue. Such an
action, seeking to adjudicate primarily private causes of action, is distinct from the restructuring
of debtor-creditor relations, which forms the heart of the federal bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction.
See Northern Pipeline Const. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 71-72 (1982).
As discussed above, the efficient use of judicial resources militates in favor of the District
Court deciding this adversary proceeding. The court deciding this adversary proceeding will be
faced with issues of contract interpretation, insurance law and federal declaratory judgment
standards. While these issues certainly are not outside the scope of what a bankruptcy court can
do, they equally are not within the specialized grant of jurisdiction to the bankruptcy court, and
that distinction guides this Court to favor withdrawal. See, e.g., MQVP, Inc., v. Keystone
Automotive Ind., Inc., Civil No. 07-10248, Case No. 06-51141, Adv. Case No. 06-05746, 2007
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9385 *4-*5 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 7, 2007). There should be no meaningful
duplication of effort with respect to the bankruptcy proceeding, as the issues of fact and law – as
well as the parties involved – will be, for the most part, different.
Likewise, there would be no particular economy to these parties from going forward in
this adversarial proceeding in the Bankruptcy Court. The Defendants are not parties to the
underlying bankruptcy proceeding, and the issues are sufficiently different from the issues in the
-4-
Case 1:07-cv-01456-SL Document 1 Filed 05/16/2007 Page 5 of 5
bankruptcy proceeding that they would have to be addressed separately in whatever forum the
Considerations of forum shopping do not enter into the equation in this case; there is no
reason to believe that either party to this adversary proceeding is any more likely to receive a
favorable decision from the District Court than from the Bankruptcy Court. In any event, as
noted previously, since this issue involves a non-core proceeding, the District Court would be
required to review the report and recommendation of the Bankruptcy Court de novo. Forum
Finally, withdrawing the reference of the adversary proceeding from the Bankruptcy
Court will have no discernible effect on desired uniformity in the administration of bankruptcy
law. Because the legal issues in this adversary proceeding are not issues of bankruptcy law – or
even closely related to bankruptcy law – the resolution the District Court reaches as to them
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Withdraw
Reference and hereby ORDERS that the reference to adversary proceeding 06-01956 be
withdrawn from the Bankruptcy Court and immediately transferred to the District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157 and Rule 5011(a) of the Federal Rules of
Bankruptcy Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
-5-